JOMARAC5 ADMITS TO BEING CAPTAIN URCHIN

1.3k · October 5, 2003

Oh, now I get it. It was a placeholder.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

8.4k · October 5, 2003

Lol...I never noticed that as a sig. Gooooood ONE!!!

Sngans

Sacred cows make the best hamburger....Mark Twain.

9.2k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
Placing an MOC allows you to see everyone who has viewed the cache page. While this is certainly not hard evidence, the person responsible for plundering the cache would have to have either viewed the page personally, or been given the coords by someone who did.

Incorrect. The coordinates are available via Pocket Queries. I strongly doubt that that GC keeps historical data on deleted Pocket Queries. But even if they did, so what? Chances are, MOCs are going to be in the PQ files of any GC member (who generates them) in the area. In urban areas, that should narrow it down to several hundred suspects.

That fact that we have the ability to get mass downloads of cache data (including MOCs) pretty much makes the so-called tracking abilities of MOC pages a joke.

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

1.6k · October 5, 2003

Captain Urchin, why not share with us the chronology of events that led to the trial of the pirate concept in the Vancouver area?

Maybe some people would like to know about the great amount of effort and planning that went into this concept.

October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
And you perceived that I wanted to weed out 'undesirables'. So you and I are both correct. You more specifically so.

Actually, the real question was, what is your criteria for deciding who is worthy of hunting your caches. Not what I perceive to be your reason.

And while we're at it, you neglected to answer the following direct questions that were put to you:

quote:
Originally posted by Gorak:
Given that you sidestepped the question by accusing me of something, may I ask what specifically you are accusing me of and, more importantly, what evidence you base your accusation on?

quote:
Originally posted by Gorak:
Please refresh my memory - what name did I call you? And what 'score' are you referring to?

They're not difficult questions.

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Check.

Sorry, I only accept cache.

__________

Gorak

1.3k · October 5, 2003

Prime, I'd forgotten about the PQ method of getting coordinates. Thanks for being the second person to remind me. While the audit log is not useful for catching pirates, anyone who has viewed one can see that many cachers (even premium members) still visit the site to view pages, and it can be fun to speculate whether someone is planning a visit to your cache.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

1.6k · October 5, 2003

Gorak:

Sidesteps, smoke screens, pirate planks, and sucrets are all part of the usual banter on this site. You CAN handle it.

Re: 'undersirables'

Your word, not mine. Your perception resulted in the question.

Re: your involvement

You are a lobbyist for the pirate concept, and apparently an avid supporter.

Re: the names

(and I quote) 'You seem to have a lot of inside information about these thefts. Seems like the tail wagging the dog to me...'

Re: check versus cache

This whole pirate dispute pains me. You may want cache, but you may have to settle for a rain check. This cache hider is close to sending back all stock...

October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Gorak:

Sidesteps, smoke screens, pirate planks, and sucrets are all part of the usual banter on this site. You CAN handle it.

Hmmm. Don't recall complaining about not being able to handle something.

quote:
_Re: 'undersirables'_

Your word, not mine. Your perception resulted in the question.

OK, so you don't want to answer the question. Fair enough.

quote:
Re: your involvement_

You are a lobbyist for the pirate concept, and apparently an avid supporter.

Don't recall ever having lobbied for the pirate concept. Perhaps you can post a link to those posting. My support amounts to allowing them to play their game on my cache. That doesn't make me a pirate nor should it be any of your concern.

I also support the concept of Pro-Choice and Gay Marriages. Doesn't make me an abortionist or gay (not that there is anything wrong with that).

quote:
Re: the names

(and I quote) 'You seem to have a lot of inside information about these thefts. Seems like the tail wagging the dog to me...'

Again, please point out the name I called you. I certainly wasn't calling you a dog! LOL

Keep smilin'!

__________

Gorak

October 5, 2003

You know, Zuuk, we've done an admirable job of hijacking this thread. Why don't we continue this in either a private thread or by direct email. I'm sure this is getting tedious for everyone else.

__________

Gorak

8.4k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Gorak:
You know, Zuuk, we've done an admirable job of hijacking this thread. Why don't we continue this in either a private thread or by direct email. I'm sure this is getting tedious for everyone else.

__________

Gorak

Dang, I just finished making popcorn. Not crappy microwave popcorn either.

Sngans

Sacred cows make the best hamburger....Mark Twain.

1.6k · October 5, 2003

Gorak will not win this debate by trolling with red herrings...

October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
_Gorak will not win this debate by trolling with red herrings..._

sigh...

Check your email.

__________

Gorak

October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
Well this has to be the funniest post of the day.

I just checked on the forums, so I apologize for the delay in posting my question... but why is this "the funniest post of the day"?

Pan

Profanity is the crutch of the inarticulate, ***hole. - Unknown

October 5, 2003

posted on the wrong thread lol

2.1k · October 5, 2003

I had noticed Jomarac5 was MIA here for a little while or at least he wasn't posting as much...guess he was a little busy...lol

Brian

www.woodsters.com

October 5, 2003

I'm prepared to give credit where credit is due. (even if it is to Jomarac5 ) I think the Captain Urchin concept (as explained on the Captain Urchin profile) is great! Good fun, done only with the consent of those who want to play. If they play by those rules, I have no problem with it at all, and I doubt that Geocaching.com would either. I don't plan on flying the Captain Urchin flag (yet) but I look forward to finding a cache that was visited by him.

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

1.6k · October 5, 2003

From the other thread:

quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

I think that the fact that Jeremy has come out and made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that "piracy", no matter how harmless, will not be tolerated by this site, will go some distance in resolving the problem. A lot of the discussion on the topic has shown that there may have been some support by normally decent cachers, for the more harmless varieties of piracy. Now those persons know that it is absolutely not tolerated here, and perhaps they will be less inclined to engage in it.

It's okay to change your mind. But which one is it?

As I said elsewhere, the pirate project gets a C for creativity, and an F for presentation.

9.2k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
Prime, I'd forgotten about the PQ method of getting coordinates. Thanks for being the second person to remind me. While the audit log is not useful for catching pirates, anyone who has viewed one can see that many cachers (even premium members) still visit the site to view pages, and it can be fun to speculate whether someone is planning a visit to your cache.

We were just talking about this on a local discussion board. There are at least 2 other methods of determining the location of MOCs, that don't even require a premium membership. One is purely mathematical, but not that accurate (it doesn't even require that you be signed on). The other is quite accurate, but takes a little trial and error. The downside to both of these is that you only get the coordinates. If it's a puzzle cache, for example, having just the coordinates won't be of much use.

(Please, nobody ask me what the methods are - I'm not getting into that. Do your own research.)

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

5.3k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
The Urchin saga was a geocaching experiment done by geocachers in order to try to grow the sport.

I hereby nominate the above for the Mendacious Post of the Year award. Any seconds?

2.5k · October 5, 2003

Cubs win!

October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:
Cubs win!

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

2.1k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:
I don't plan on flying the Captain Urchin flag (yet) but I look forward to finding a cache that was visited by him.

For seneca and others, the way it is described on Captain Urchin's profile page is about as close to what I believe I was advocating for all this time. It is a fun opt-in way to add to the game.

Personally, I'm still not of the opinion that opt-in need be *necessary* but if that is what it would take to get it to fly better, then I'm definitely all for making it exclusively an opt-in game (as I've also said before).

--

http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1064605367.html

1.4k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
I had noticed Jomarac5 was MIA here for a little while or at least he wasn't posting as much...guess he was a little busy...lol

Actually, I have been pretty busy lately. Unlike some, I do have other things besides these forums to occupy my time.

quote:
ju66l3r wrote:
Personally, I'm still not of the opinion that opt-in need be *necessary* but if that is what it would take to get it to fly better, then I'm definitely all for making it exclusively an opt-in game (as I've also said before).

It's very necessary to get permission first. It's a courtesy to people and a matter of respect.

Unlike some of the bad pirates, there is no intention of deliberately getting people upset by any of this. Personally, I don't think there is any good reason to go around playing with peoples caches just for the sake of upsetting them -- opting in is not a negative here, far from it, in fact. Obviously, those who don't want to participate in the fun, don't have to, and no one is imposing upon them to do so.

The Captain Urchin method of pirating lets cache owners decide for themselves. Quite simple really.

[bTW: nice avatar ju66l3r, it's hauntingly familiar ]

quote:
fizzymagic wrote: (regarding ju66l3r's comment "Personally, I'm still not of the opinion that opt-in need be *necessary*")
Exactly why it is so unacceptable. Clearly, the pirate advocates Just Don't Get It.

Actually, as is evident here, some pirate advocates *DO* get it.

quote:
Seneca wrote:
I'm prepared to give credit where credit is due. (even if it is to Jomarac5 ) I think the Captain Urchin concept (as explained on the Captain Urchin profile) is great! Good fun, done only with the consent of those who want to play. If they play by those rules, I have no problem with it at all, and I doubt that Geocaching.com would either. I don't plan on flying the Captain Urchin flag (yet) but I look forward to finding a cache that was visited by him.

Arrr!!! Hope you find a cache that's been pirated by Captain Urchin real soon.

*****

2.1k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:

quote:
Originally posted by ju66l3r:
Personally, I'm still not of the opinion that opt-in need be *necessary*

Exactly why it is so unacceptable. Clearly, the pirate advocates Just Don't Get It.

y33g-fcrnx zbeba.

2 problems here:

1) You misquoted me, please keep all things in context. I said opt-in is not what I'd rather, but if it's what is needed for people to appropriately enjoy the game, then let's accept it that way. I never said that opt-in is unacceptable at all. I said "if I had it my way....", but I don't have it my way (obviously) and that's hopefully not a problem for anyone, even me. It was just a musing on my ideal construction of the game. In my ideal construction of the game, people wouldn't steal whole caches either. And every cache I went to would have limitless lollipops.

2) Even if *I* didn't "Get It" (and I do), your statement is a generalization which does not follow (i.e. ju66l3r doesn't get it, ju66l3r is an advocate, ergo all advocates don't get it). This is an affront to logical people everywhere.

Vafhygf va ebg13 jvyy abg or gbyrengrq. Lbh unir orra ercbegrq gb gur sbehz nqzvavfgengbef.

--

http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1064605367.html

5.3k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ju66l3r:
1) You misquoted me, please keep all things in context. I said opt-in is not what I'd rather, but if it's what is needed for people to appropriately enjoy the game, then let's accept it that way.

Exactly. You completely don't get why messing with other peoples' property should require permission. Ergo, you do not get it.

BTW, statements of fact, by themselves, are not insults.

2.1k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
It's very necessary to get permission first. It's a courtesy to people and a matter of respect.

Unlike some of the bad pirates, there is no intention of deliberately getting people upset by any of this. Personally, I don't think there is any good reason to go around playing with peoples caches just for the sake of upsetting them -- opting in is not a negative here, far from it, in fact. Obviously, those who don't want to participate in the fun, don't have to, and no one is imposing upon them to do so.

The Captain Urchin method of pirating lets cache owners decide for themselves. Quite simple really.

No worries, Jomarac! My guess is you have not worried about going back through the 2 weeks worth of threads about this matter, but I completely agree that good-pirating means not upsetting people. It was made clear to me and others who find this new game entertaining that unless it's opt-in then it's going to upset people.

My biggest problem with making it an opt-in system is that it takes the surprise from the pirating notice. It was a post by SylvrStorm in fact that made me realize that if you have multiple caches in the area with permission (via contacting owners or the use of the logo) then the surprise may be limited from *all* caches, but it is still there, since there are a number that may be pirated and only one will be struck.

I'm all about making this acceptable so that it can continue and spread to other areas where people have not yet heard of it and be accepted on the spot instead of as it seems its inception has crept up and scared some people.

BTW, if you are responsible for the Urchin rules/profile, congrats! I think you've struck a note that sounds agreeable to most people!

quote:
[bTW: nice avatar ju66l3r, it's hauntingly familiar ]

Heh...you should have seen it before this one, zuuk and his pretty girlie were flipping out...no worries though, I'll have found another avatar to parody soon enough.

--

http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1064605367.html

4.8k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Cubs win!

Sorry to also be off topic, but YES! CUBS WIN!!!! I have been flying my car and house flags all week and am watching ebay for NLCS tickets.

I may or may not have some things to post in this thread in the next day or so. I have to decide between my "speak your mind mode" and "oh geeze just stay out of it" mode. Regardless, in my joy over the Cub's win, I just don't want to think about it all right now!

CUBS WIN!

2.1k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:
Exactly. You completely don't get why messing with other peoples' property should require permission. Ergo, you do not get it.

BTW, statements of fact, by themselves, are not insults.

Simply put, you are wrong.

I get that permission is required to mess with other people's things. The problem is that peoples' perceptions of what is "their's" in this hobby differ.

(What follows is ONLY ideology) My ideal community would have the logbook, a pen/pencil, and the container be the sole property of the cache hider. Everything else in the cache is communal. As such, it's subject to be taken, traded, added to, etc. If a pirate trades everything communal in the cache for some pirate-related items and a note about the location of the original items, then so be it. The pirate is as much a member of the community as a cacher who trades a McToy for a $20 gift certificate. Nothing about this scenario _requires_ permission, because communal cache items are not "other" people's property, they are *every* people's property (AND they are only a few hundred feet away should someone like to replace them). (ideology-mode off)

I recognize (and recognized in my original post by using terms such as "Personally" and "of the opinion") that this is NOT the ideology of everyone. That is what leads you to believe that I think messing with others' things without permission is acceptable. It is for this reason that an opt-in system is necessary (as I already said). Other people see things differently and the only way to satisfy these multiple ideologies is to create a way of denoting those caches which would like to participate in a system where pirates can visit their caches and seekers can know they *might* be in for a surprise, since this isn't only about hider's property but seeker's efforts as well.

As to your "BTW" justification for breaking the forum rules, opinions are not facts. Intentional personal attacks are opinions by their very nature.

EDIT: I hope you all realize that my ideology is mine alone and that since a perfectly acceptable (to me) solution to this issue is available (see Urchin profile), I don't feel a need to adjust my ideology on cache/content ownership. If you're going to respond to my ideology, I hope it is not in a way of attacking it (it is only an idea after all) and hopefully, it would only be to present other ideologies. We benefit through exposure to new ideas and views...at least, I do.

--

http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1064605367.html

[This message was edited by ju66l3r on October 05, 2003 at 10:03 PM.]

2.1k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:
l33t-speak is a pretty sure sign that the speaker is under 21 in _some_ way.

[This message was edited by fizzymagic on October 05, 2003 at 09:24 PM.]

If by "some" way, you mean "likes to have the same juggling related username regardless of which website he registers at because 'juggler' is usually taken (there are a lot of jugglers in the world), but 'ju66l3r' is never taken so you can have an educated guess that it's also me"...then, guilty as charged. But if you were just implying that I'm mentally immature because I substituted a few numbers for letters in my ID, then troll away, my good troll.

I wonder if Jeremy would be interested in redoing these forums in slashcode (a forum system where the community votes each post as to its worthiness and the more often you are given good ratings, the slight rise given to your initial post weight...there are also personalized weighting options so you can give friends higher weights and trolling can be filtered).

--

http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1064605367.html

October 5, 2003

Come on you guys (fizzy and ju66l3r) -- stop flexing your intellect at each other -- you're taking Zuuky's post off topic. This post is about cache pirates, OK?

*****

1.6k · October 5, 2003

Do the contributions of Captain Urchin and his ilk really outweight the contributions of geocaching.com supporters?

Are we really going to see a new wave of caches solely because someone started handing out free lock & lock boxes?

October 5, 2003

quote:
l33t-speak is a pretty sure sign that the speaker is under 21 in _some_ way

I think it was my 8th grade Geometry teacher that told me Assuming only makes an @55 out of you and me... and yes I'm under 21 but your comment was beyond pitiful. ...whoops your ignorance is showing...

1.6k · October 5, 2003

Captain Urchin, are we to believe that the pirate concept was developed solely as a creative means to enhance geocaching everywhere?

Let me ask it a different way.

Were there no selfish interests being satisfied through propagating this idea on an unsuspecting caching population?

October 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Do the contributions of Captain Urchin and his ilk really outweight the contributions of geocaching.com supporters?

Are we really going to see a new wave of caches solely because someone started handing out free lock & lock boxes?

Just out of curiosity Zuuk. How would you like to see variations and creativity added to the goecaching community?

You can steer all you want, but it is all for not if your not moving forward!

1.6k · October 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by WCoaster:

Just out of curiosity Zuuk. How would you like to see variations and creativity added to the goecaching community?

I give the presentation of the concept an F. It was presented poorly. Haphazard would be a good way of describing it.

Creative ideas need to be brought out, but in a respectful way. Bringing out a pirate-like concept at the height of anti-pirate sentiment didn't give this thing a fighting chance.

As for how I would like to see the ideas presented? The forums are a good place to start.

Be honest, be upfront, and be respectful of the community. Cachers introduce new ideas via their caches all the time. They either catch on, or they don't.

Having the anti-geofroggers over at the para-site manipulate the game on this site was uncool to say the least.

Have an event. Post an event in the forums or on a cache page, or via a meeting, and present the ideas to all who can attend. Keep it open. It's better to have the detractors knowing ahead of time what is going on, because if they don't, the forum stinkees are 3 times as big when they DO find out.

That's not an exhaustive list, but it's all I could come up with off the top of my head in two minutes.

October 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:
l33t-speak is a pretty sure sign that the speaker is under 21 in _some_ way.

Wow. Don't tell this guy.

1.4k · October 6, 2003

So much I could say here, but I'll try to keep it short.

quote:
Zuuk wrote:
I give the presentation of the concept an F. It was presented poorly. Haphazard would be a good way of describing it.

Roeper:"Hey Roger, what do you think about this new pirate in BC? Where do you think it stands right now"

Siskel: Well Richard, it had a couple of minor flaws in the very beginning but they were corrected quickly and in a way that the solutions created a bit more fun to the whole idea -- I like it a lot and give it a big thumbs up."

Roeper: I couldn't agree more. But as you know, there's always one or two who will disagree and will dwell on a few minor points but eventually they'll come around and see it for what it is -- good wholesome entertainment. I also give it a big thumbs up."

Sorry Zuuk, I don't see where your single F matters a whole lot.

quote:
Bringing out a pirate-like concept at the height of anti-pirate sentiment didn't give this thing a fighting chance.

Fighting chance? I'd say that in many ways it has helped it a great deal. It's shown that what we're doing here is not the same as is being done elsewhere. It's been a good example to a few bad pirates that were doing things in a harmful and destructive way, how to do it better -- in a way that doesn't get people all riled up and is actually fun for cachers and pirates.

Why do you suppose so many people around here LIKE the Urchin concept?

quote:
As for how I would like to see the ideas presented? The forums are a good place to start.

This will be a bit difficult for you to grasp, but if every idea and creative concept was introduced through these forums for approval, nothing would ever get done. Everyone would be arguing about every last little detail until there was nothing that even closely resembles the original intent, if anything is left at all. Just look at how the private discussion to name the pirates progressed and finally dwindled into nothingness -- that one really accomplished a lot, eh?

quote:
Cachers introduce new ideas via their caches all the time. They either catch on, or they don't.

Seems like this one caught on pretty well.

quote:
Having the anti-geofroggers over at the para-site manipulate the game on this site was uncool to say the least.

And this has exactly what to do with this particular converstation?

-----

You seem to missing a number of crucial points here Zuuk;

1. The cache owner has agreed in advance to allow Captain Urchin to visit the cache.

2. The log book and pencil are left in the cache so those like yourself, who don't wish to participate in the fun and adventure, can log the cache without having to involve themselves in a little harmless diversion to their every day.

3. Leaving cache containers is adding to the game -- we will see some new caches.

4. You may not like what is going on, but nobody is doing anything wrong here.

5. Nobody is doing anything wrong here.

Lighten up man -- it's just a game.

*****

1.6k · October 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

Roeper : Siskel

You did claim at one time to be from a theater near you. So it's no surprise you fancy yourself as a movie star. I can see why Sngans was getting the popcorn ready yesterday...

quote:
I'd say that in many ways it has helped it a great deal. It's shown that what we're doing here is not the same as is being done elsewhere. It's been a good example to a few bad pirates that were doing things in a harmful and destructive way, how to do it better -- in a way that doesn't get people all riled up and is actually fun for cachers and pirates.

Okay. This I can appreciate. I can see how you would initially think this was the case. Though I disagree with your tactics and assertion that what you did as Captain Urchin was inherently 'better'.

quote:
Why do you suppose so many people around here LIKE the Urchin concept?

Why do you suppose so many people around the continent don't like the Urchin concept?

quote:
(Re: anti-geofroggers)

And this has exactly what to do with this particular converstation?

Everything. It's the main stumbling block. Here you have a para-site that hates Jeremy and the structure of geocaching.com, and you're going out there with your pirate concept come hell or high water... You get cachers linking their pages to that site. And then EVERY ONE OF MY CACHES is listed on the site as being open season. (Yes, I have read your post that 'defends' my caches...)

I have read, listened to and understood your 5 points more than a few times.

You can't pour new wine into old wineskins. I'm not sure how it is that you became convinced that you could salvage the pirate concept for everybody and for the betterment of geocaching as a whole.

But I guess we love a good pirate story as much as we love to continue on in our old ways.

We want to do what we want to do. And we do it.

October 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
From the http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=4016058331&m=61160688&p=1 thread:

quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

I think that the fact that Jeremy has come out and made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that "piracy", no matter how harmless, will not be tolerated by this site, will go some distance in resolving the problem. A lot of the discussion on the topic has shown that there may have been some support by normally decent cachers, for the more harmless varieties of piracy. Now those persons know that it is absolutely not tolerated here, and perhaps they will be less inclined to engage in it.

It's okay to change your mind. But which one is it?

As I said elsewhere, the pirate project gets a C for creativity, and an F for presentation.

What is presented on the Captain Urchin profile is not piracy. Piracy, by definition is the unauthorized interference with the property of others. I stand by my words - I am totally opposed to even the most harmless type of piracy in Geocaching.com and I support the fact that they will not tolerate it. I am however not opposed to the clearly "non-piracy" Captain Urchin concept, even if it does have an old fashioned Pirate theme (in the same way that the kid who dresses up on Hallowe'en as a Pirate - but has no intention of stealing other kids candy).

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

1.4k · October 6, 2003

quote:
Zuuk wrote:
Why do you suppose so many people around the continent don't like the Urchin concept?

Ah... maybe because they are confusing it with the pirates who are stealing caches.

quote:
Here you have a para-site that hates Jeremy and the structure of geocaching.com

I can't speak for everyone on the pirate site, but I know that this is not the impression that I get. Hate is a pretty strong word Zuuk, and I don't recall that I've run across anyone who has said that they hate Jeremy, or his website.

quote:
and you're going out there with your pirate concept come hell or high water...

I've actually found that high water works much better for floating ships.

quote:
You get cachers linking their pages to that site.

Whoa there! Where do you get the idea that I got anyone to link to anywhere?

quote:
And then EVERY ONE OF MY CACHES is listed on the site as being open season. (Yes, I have read your post that 'defends' my caches...)

If you read my post, then why are you bringing this up again? I made it very clear that I didn't think that your caches should be touched by anyone. Still don't -- unless of course, we see a Captain Urchin graphic on them.

quote:
I have read, listened to and understood your 5 points more than a few times.

No, I don't think that you have understood them. If you did, you wouldn't be so worked up about all of this.

quote:
But I guess we love a good pirate story as much as we love to continue on in our old ways.

Well, as I've mentioned before, I love a good pirate story. And this one is looking like a pretty darned good one. It could very well become a favourite.

Avast Zuuky, it's all an adventure...

*****

1.6k · October 6, 2003

Whatever.

Either I'm very tired, or this is boring. Or both? Sngans, did you eat all the popcorn?

This thread really needs some closing remarks from Jeremy perhaps, and then it can go buh bye...

October 6, 2003

I think you guys should take this out to the parking lot, so we can all get back to our drinks.

--

Pehmva!

Random quote:

sigimage.php

October 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
This thread really needs some closing

Good idea. Let's summarize then. No one has any problem with this idea and everyone thinks it's very cool and adds new excitement to the game (for those that opt into it). Well except you of course. ;-)

9.4k · October 6, 2003

So, will pirate costumes be a hit this halloween for geocachers?

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

October 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
So, will pirate costumes be a hit this halloween for geocachers?

HARRR! I have no plans for this halloween Geocaching in a pirate costume could be a fun idea!

A great serial killer once said, "Beauty is only skin deep. Trust me, I've looked..."

2.1k · October 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
You can't pour new wine into old wineskins. I'm not sure how it is that you became convinced that you could salvage the pirate concept for everybody and for the betterment of geocaching as a whole.

You can pour new wine into new wineskins. There are thousands of cachers who don't read here and have no idea what happened in 3-4 other areas of the country (Seattle, BC, NJ)...if hiders in other areas are introduced to the concept in a better manner, its first impression will be good and more acceptable to many other people than the current forum constituency (which still has what I would think of as considerable support from some).

--

http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1064605367.html

6.5k · October 6, 2003

quote:
This is quite a different approach than the 'RAMMING IT DOWN OUR THROATS and misleading us' tactic employed elsewhere...

Umm Zuuky-was it really necessary to BOLD

those particular words with your new avatar?

These changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes;

Nothing remains quite the same.

Through all of the islands and all of the highlands,

If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

1.6k · October 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
This thread really needs some closing remarks from Jeremy perhaps, and then it can go buh bye...

Maybe it shouldn't have been brought up to begin with.

It's been mentioned to me that some people don't post here because of the fussing, fighting, and finger pointing. Say the slightest thing wrong and you're jumped all over. Accusations fly at the slightest of perceived wrongs.

No wonder people are afraid to post here. If I weren't thick skinned, I probably wouldn't either.

CR

1.6k · October 6, 2003

I am sure that Jomarac5/Captain Urchin appreciate folks support. At least people know what happened in our town. At one point, you couldn't get a straight answer out of anyone about this.

Well, that's not entirely true. Seems folks all over the place knew Jomarac5 had this show going on.

I guess the joke's on me for having been duped.

October 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
I am sure that Jomarac5/Captain Urchin appreciate folks support. At least people know what happened in our town. At one point, you couldn't get a straight answer out of anyone about this.

Well, that's not entirely true. Seems folks all over the place knew Jomarac5 had this show going on.

I guess the joke's on me for having been duped.

The jokes on you for being the lone raving lunatic about this whole thing. Gotta give you credit though, like a freakn pittbull on a chihuahua. Geeze.

One thing zuuky, can you please change that avtar now? It is starting to freak me out in a Michael Jackson sort of way.

You can steer all you want, but it is all for naught if your not moving forward!

JOMARAC5 ADMITS TO BEING CAPTAIN URCHIN

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment